• commentary
  • SUNDAY OCTOBER 14 2007 3:00 PM

Just the Facts, Ma'am



The two main posts linked below in all caps are not only worth reading, they're worth bookmarking, printing up on transfer paper, and ironing on t-shirts. Seriously.

CHECK IT:

A comprehensive global study of abortion has concluded that abortion rates are similar in countries where it is legal and those where it is not, suggesting that outlawing the procedure does little to deter women seeking it.


Duh.

Moreover, the researchers found that abortion was safe in countries where it was legal, but dangerous in countries where it was outlawed and performed clandestinely.


Honest to god, that right there should be the end of the fucking argument, people. Women abort pregnancies whether or not the Man "allows" them to, because women are in charge of pregnancies and we know if we can deal with another kid or not. Period. Either you believe that women who abort deserve to die, in which case you're "anti-abortion" (or "pro-life"wink, or you don't, in which case you're "pro-choice".

Let's rename those groups to reflect the facts. The antis can be the "pro dead women" camp and the pros can be the "pro adequate medical care" camp.

Extra bonus kicker:

The data also suggested that the best way to reduce abortion rates was not to make abortion illegal but to make contraception more widely available.


Again, duh. How does the "pro dead women" camp stack up on the question of contraception? Catholic Church--anti-contraception (hence, pro dead women). George Bush--anti-contraception = pro dead women. The National Right to Life--officially has no position on contraception but is anti-Planned Parenthood, anti-health-care reform and pro-criminalizing abortion = pro dead women. Feminists for Life--pro-criminalization, "no opinion" on birth control = pro dead women. Concerned Women for America--anti-birth control = pro dead women.

Try it. Google any so-called pro-life organization you want + "birth control" and find out if they support birth control or not. Is their anti-abortion prosition "prevent abortions" or is it "make abortions dangerous"?

And for extra bonus points, see what they have to say about Planned Parenthood, which does more to prevent abortion in this country than any other organnization.

Part two

As ONE MEDICAL STUDENT EXPLAINS, to his surprise.

fully ignorant of Planned Parenthood beforehand, I thought I’d be doing abortion evaluations. Planned Parenthood equals abortions. That was the extent of my knowledge.

I was so far, far off base it’s not even funny.* In fact, it may sound ironic, but I’m pretty confident when I say this: No matter what your feelings are about the subject, there would be more abortions performed in this country if Planned Parenthood didn’t exist.The patients I’ve seen have been, in general, young, healthy women, ages 12 to 26. . . .

They come in primarily for three things:

1. annual exams (pap smears, breast exams, etc.),
2. sexually-transmitted infection (STIs) diagnosis and treatment,
3. and birth control.


Read the whole thing--he puts to rest a lot of the cliches about who uses Planned Parenthood ("They are sexually active, almost always with one, monogamous partner, and they do not want to get pregnant."), whether or not women who use Planned Parenthood are "responsible" ("my patients are more informed about their health and medicines than me"), and whether they're the exception or the norm ("Over 90% of women of childbearing age use some sort of contraception method").

And yes, they also provide safe abortions. Because doing so is a necessary part of women's reproductive health care, one that saves lives.

Like I said, this shit deserves to be printed on t-shirts. Hell, shouted from the rooftops.

Bitch_PhD dismisses anyone who doesn't support Planned Parenthood as a woman-hating asshole, even if they're a woman themselves.

More statistics (including image source) here.

  • commentary
  • TUESDAY OCTOBER 9 2007 4:00 PM

Lorraine Rothman is Dead; Long Live Her Legacy



Lorraine Rothman died a couple of weeks ago, though the mainstream press is only now publishing obituaries.

Who was Lorraine Rothman?

In 1971, Rothman, a teacher and mother of four, founded with Carol Downer the Los Angeles Feminist Women's Health Center, which taught women how to perform their own cervical self-examinations and pregnancy tests.

They also popularized a procedure called menstrual extraction, which could be used as a method of early abortion.


Menstrual extraction was, and is, truly revolutionary. Using a simple device, which Rothman made with

parts she found in supermarkets, hardware stores, aquarium shops and her husband's biology lab,


women could perform early abortions on one another and on themselves. With simple training, the procedure was safe and effective, and it was used by women in the days before legal abortion in this country to help one another terminate unwanted pregnancies.

Rothman was also a pioneer of the movement, radical in the 1960s and 70s, to teach women to look at and be familiar with their own sexual and reproductive organs. With her friend Carol Downer, she established the Los Angeles Feminist Women's Health Center; later she wrote Menopause Myths & Facts, which argued--correctly, as it turned out--that "hormone replacement therapy" was unhealthy and unnecessary for women undergoing normal menopause.

Rothman's legacy is especially pertinent nowadays, for reasons that should be obvious. Witness, for example, what is happening now in Nicaragua, where abortion is now illegal, with no exceptions for a woman's health:

María de Jesús González was a practical woman. A very poor single mother, the 28-year-old's home was a shack on a mountain near the town of Ocotal in Nicaragua. She made the best of it. The shack was spotless, the children scrubbed. She earned money by washing clothes in the river and making and selling tortillas.

That nowast quite enough to feed her four young children and her elderly mother, so every few months González caught a bus to Managua, the capital, and slaved for a week washing and ironing clothes. The pay was three times better, about £2.60 a day, and by staying with two aunts she cut her costs. She would return to her hamlet with a little nest-egg in her purse. She bought herself one treat - a pair of red shoes - but she would leave them with her family in Managua, as they were no good on the mountain trails she had to go up to get home.

During a visit to Managua in February she felt unwell and visited a hospital. The news was devastating. She was pregnant - and it was ectopic, meaning the foetus was growing outside the womb and not viable. The longer González remained pregnant, the greater the risk of rupture, haemorrhaging and death.

What González did next was - when you understand what life in Nicaragua is like these days - utterly rational. She walked out of the hospital, past the obstetrics and gynaecological ward, past the clinics and pharmacies lining the avenues, packed her bag, kissed her aunts goodbye, and caught a bus back to her village. She summoned two neighbouring women - traditional healers - and requested that they terminate the pregnancy in her shack. Without anaesthetic or proper instruments it was more akin to mutilation than surgery, but González insisted. The haemhorraging was intense, and the agony can only be imagined. It was in vain. Maria died. "We heard there was a lot of blood, a lot of pain," says Esperanza Zeledon, 52, one of the Managua aunts.
....
Her children have been taken into care and her mother now lives alone. The only mementos of González's visits to her aunts in Managua are some clothes and the red shoes.


And of course González is not the only one.

No one knows how many other women have died, or are going to die, as a result of the law. The Pope seemed to acknowledge an increased risk to women's health but Nicaragua's government has made no formal study of the law's impact. Women's rights organisations say their 82 documented deaths are the tip of the iceberg. The Pan-American Health Organisation estimates one woman per day suffers from an ectopic pregnancy, and that every two days a woman suffers a miscarriage from a molar pregnancy. That adds up to hundreds of obstetric emergencies per year.

Human Rights Watch, in a recent report titled Over Their Dead Bodies, cited one woman who urgently needed medical help, but was left untreated at a public hospital for two days because the foetus was still alive and so a therapeutic abortion would be illegal. Eventually she expelled the foetus on her own. "By then she was already in septic shock and died five days later," said the doctor.

Another woman, named Mariana, said she obtained a clandestine abortion because her pregnancy aggravated a permanent health condition. "I was very afraid. It was very traumatic not to be able to talk about it, because it is a crime. The abortion saved both me and the two children I already have." The report said the potentially most harmful impact was that girls and women were afraid of seeking treatment for pregnancy-related complications, especially haemorrhaging, in case they were accused of having induced an abortion.
....
Inspector Martylee Ingram has the same, almost apologetic tone. She is discussing the harrowing case of an 11-year-old girl, Vera, who has been raped and is now 27 weeks pregnant. Asked if Vera should have the baby, she hesitates. The law says yes and her job is to enforce the law. The inspector shakes her head. "But me, as a woman and policewoman, I'd say no. I feel like she shouldn't have it. It's a baby having a baby. She might not survive."

Last month an assembly vote on whether to uphold the law was an emotional and boisterous affair with dozens of girls and women in the public gallery chanting in protest. Separated by just a sheet of glass, the two sides were a study in contrasts. One comprised mostly elderly men in suits, some of whom opened their speeches by saying "I am a Catholic". The other comprised mostly young women in jeans and T-shirts. "Shame, shame, shame on you all," shouted one teenager. "Daniel Ortega is a rapist," shouted another, a reference to allegations the politican raped his stepdaughter. (He was acquitted of all charges.)

Among the police officers keeping an eye on the protesters was a twentysomething woman with a slight bump beneath her blue uniform. She was four months pregnant and anxious, it turned out, because she had been diagnosed with toxic plasmosis, a bacterium that enters the bloodstream during pregnancy and can gravely damage the foetus. She watched the votes stack up in favour of the blanket ban and shook her head, but said nothing.


As Echidne of the Snakes points out,

most . . . ideas about how to ban abortion in this country consist of something very similar to the Nicaraguan law which makes the physicians into criminals.


Criminalizing doctors for performing safe--and necessary--medical procedures creates an atmosphere of fear and reluctance around those same safe--and necessary--procedures; in such an atmosphere, women die. links to evidence that some anti-abortion activists will argue that

there is no such thing as an abortion to save the life of the mother,


which is clearly not true; aside from emergencies like ectopic pregnancies, there's the very real and ugly fact that women *will* do dangerous and even fatal things to abort unwanted pregnancies.

Which is why women like Lorraine Rothman were, and are, heroines.

Bitch_PhD thinks more people should know how to perform menstrual extraction.

  • commentary
  • SUNDAY SEPTEMBER 16 2007 4:00 PM

Birth Control is Good for You



Rock the fuck on: a new study says that the pill cuts the risk of any kind of cancer by 12%.

the real benefits kick in 15 years or more after she has stopped. Most women go on the pill in their late teens or early twenties and have given up by their late twenties, before the age when cancer becomes most common.

The researchers, who analyzed 36 years of data from the Royal College of General Practitioners' oral contraception study, show that women who were once on the pill . . . .are significantly less likely to suffer from certain other cancers, in particular ovarian cancer and endometrial cancer, which affects the lining of the womb. They are also better protected from bowel cancer.



The one down side is that women who took the pill for over eight years are apparently more likely to get cervical cancer. But as the linked article points out, that's possibly the effect not of the pill, but of condomless sexual activity; most sexually active adults have contacted HPV at some point, and as we all know, some strains of HPV are known to cause cervical cancer.

And hey, there's a vaccine against that these days. Hurrah for science!

Bitch_PhD thinks the pill is the greatest thing since sliced bread.



  • news
  • MONDAY MARCH 26 2007 9:00 AM

Pregnant Girls Not Human in North Dakota



Probably the scariest story yet about the extremes of the family values, anti-abortion right: North Dakota's House of Representatives just rejected a bill that would allow pregnant teenagers to see doctors without having to get their parents' permission.

Pregnant girls should get adult permission before they get medical checkups for their unborn babies, the state House decided as representatives defeated a proposal to allow teenagers to seek confidential prenatal care.

North Dakota law now requires a doctor to have permission from a parent or guardian to treat pregnant girls who are younger than 18.
...
[Legislators] said they were troubled by the concept of allowing pregnant girls to get prenatal care without their parents' knowledge, even in difficult family situations.


Holeey crap. Could it be any clearer that children--especially girl children--are essentially chattel in the eyes of these people? In ND, kids over 14 can get confidential treatment for addiction or STDs (as they should). But pregnancy, which specifically affects only girls? Nope.

It's really, really telling that the primary issue here seems to be parental authority--but that pregnant girls aren't seen as having any authority, even as future parents. And that the sole regret lawmakers seem willing to address is the effect that a lack of medical care might have on the fetus, rather than the pregnant girl herself:

"Vast generations have been born without the type of medical care and prenatal care that we have today," said Rep. Dan Ruby, R-Minot. "It's great that people get the treatment early, but we don't need to do something that is going to take away the authority of the parents, who are responsible for paying the bills."


For paying the bills?!?! Wow. Is this enough evidence that the "who's gonna pay for it?" philosophy of politics has gone too far? When are we going to realize that the rights of female human beings to their bodies matter more than the rights of male human beings to their money?

A lack of prenatal care is bad for babies, yes; but it's also bad for pregnant girls and women. Ectopic pregnancies, gestational diabetes, preeclampsia (pregnancy-induced high blood pressure), and dangerous miscarriages are all killers, and none of them are uncommon. And what if a pregnant girl shows up in the e.r. after being hit by a car, or beaten by her boyfriend or parents? Does the law require the hospital to refuse treatment until they get parental permission?

But I guess if girls don't respect the authoritah of the patriarchy, then they deserve to risk death.

Scary.

Bitch_PhD wonders how long it'll be before we allow honor killings of girls who have disgraced their families by daring to act as if they had rights.

  • news
  • SATURDAY MARCH 24 2007 3:00 PM

Latest News from the War on Women



If you're in college, you may have noticed that the cost of your birth control's gone way up.

Last year when Pres. George W. Bush slashed funding for domestic spending programs to free up more money for his war on terror, analysts didn't foresee how steeply some prices would increase as a result of fewer federal dollars. This year millions of college students are seeing steep price increases that have doubled or tripled the price of birth control pills.
. . . .
Skyrocketing price increases are fallout from the 2005 deficit-reduction bill that focused on Medicaid. Because Medicaid is the federal health insurance program for the poor college health officials had not realized the bill would affect them in any way.


This is annoying, of course; but it also contributes to systemic discrimination. College students are often kinda broke--having to pay for birth control is an expense women have, and men don't. So women are a little bit broker having to buy birth control; and now they're a little bit broker still, since it costs two or three times more than it did last year.

Same with health insurance not covering birth control: there's an out-of-pocket expense that women have, and men don't.

It seems petty, but it adds up. If you have to scrimp at the beginning of the semester by, say, postponing buying a book or two, then you might be a little behind; if you have to work an extra hour or two a week in order to afford birth control, you have a little less time to study. And if you run out of pills and are too broke to afford to replace 'em for a week or two, and you take a gamble, well then, you're up shit creek.

Does this kind of thing constitute systematic sexism? You tell me.

Bitch PhD remembers having to budget for things like tooth brushes and birth control pills, and is glad those days are behind her now.